View previous stories
	EU ministers leave the door open for harmful food speculation by Concord, Oxfam, FOE, Somo, agencies   Joint press release by Concord Denmark, Corporate Europe Observatory, Foodwatch, Friends Of The Earth Europe, Oxfam, Somo, World Development Movement.   Little will be done to curb harmful food speculation today as EU finance ministers meet to approve their position on the new Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) – which sets new regulations for financial markets. According to a broad coalition of environmental and development organizations, loopholes in the legislation will render it ineffective to prevent food speculation, and the resulting food price spikes that hit the poorest the hardest.   Anne van Schaik, accountable finance campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said: “Food speculation profits financial institutions, and costs the world''s most vulnerable the food on their plates. Watertight regulation of food speculation is vital to prevent excessive speculation driving up food prices – but finance ministers have failed to agree effective controls, such as limits to the bets that speculators can make.”   Marc Olivier Herman, EU policy advisor at Oxfam, said: “EU governments failed to tackle the systemic risk that unbridled speculation poses to world food security. It is now crucial that the European Parliament takes a stronger position in upcoming negotiations on behalf of the millions in poor countries who are hit by high and unpredictable food prices, and for families in the EU who feel the impacts of rising food bills.”   The organizations expressed concern that European regulators will not set adequate EU-wide limits to the bets speculators can make and that limits may not be comprehensive or applicable to all types of traders – which will allow financial institutions to sidestep regulation.   Christine Haigh, policy officer at the World Development Movement said: “We are deeply concerned over the fact that in the current text, limits on speculation will be set at national level, rather than being consistent across the EU. This will pit the member states against each other in a ‘race to the bottom’ to set the weakest limits”.   Myriam Vander Stichele from SOMO said: “The new legislation will not be effective if there are no clear position limits on over-the-counter commodity derivatives or ‘swaps’, often linked to speculative trading. The US has put such limits into law and the EU must follow suit in order to prevent traders from avoiding these new rules. The EU has been giving in to too many demands from the financial services lobby.”   Discussions between the European Parliament and Council will continue with an agreed text due for adoption in March 2014, supported by the European Commission. The organizations identified eight of the most dangerous loopholes and outlined solutions – to ensure European policy-making puts the hunger of people before the greed of financial institutions and puts a stop to the damage done by financial markets through excessive and harmful speculation.   http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2013-06-21/eu-ministers-leave-door-open-harmful-food-speculation http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom http://blogs.oxfam.org/ Visit the related web page
	Justice in austerity – challenges and opportunities for access to justice by Navi Pillay United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights   I would like to share with you some observations and recommendations on our Conference’s topic “Justice in austerity”, essentially from an international human rights law perspective.   The context of the financial crisis and economic recession has led many States to embark upon austerity programmes and budget cuts in efforts to stabilize their economies. Let me emphasise, though, how important it is to adopt a human rights-based approach to such programmes if and when States choose to pursue them.   While decisions on austerity measures are always difficult, Governments have to ensure that their economic policies, especially when they entail deep cuts in public spending, do not lead to discrimination and negatively impact the enjoyment of human rights, for example the right to adequate housing, food, health care, education and access to justice. In addition, economic stabilisation measures should pay special attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.   It is crucial to ensure that persons living in poverty, migrants, refugees, women, children, members of minorities, persons with disabilities and the elderly are not disproportionately affected by austerity measures.   Mounting social tension in several countries shows the dangers which can be associated with curtailing economic, social and cultural rights. Authorities should mitigate the social impacts of the austerity measures on the most vulnerable segments of the population by ensuring widespread consultations with all segments of society that are likely to be impacted by budgetary reductions.   Through the compilation of disaggregated statistical information, authorities can identify the individuals and groups affected and thereby increase the effectiveness of efforts to protect their economic, social and cultural rights.   In general, improved data collection is needed for a more scientific approach to analysing what works and what does not work for the protection of human rights. In this context there is an acute need for focusing on comparability, indicators and benchmarks.   While States have a margin of appreciation with regard to austerity measures, this margin of appreciation is not unlimited. Once States have decided to implement austerity programmes or budget cuts, considerations regarding human rights obligations of States should guide all decision-making in this area.   Retrogressive measures affecting economic, social and cultural rights can only be justified after a careful examination of all alternatives, and only if they meet the following criteria. Measures should be of a temporary character, limited to the period of crisis. They should be strictly necessary and proportionate, in the sense that the adoption of any other policy, or failure to act, would be more detrimental to the concerned rights. Austerity measures should also respect the principle of equality and comply with the prohibition of discrimination, and be accompanied by a simultaneous adoption of measures to mitigate the effect of the crisis on the most vulnerable.   Austerity measures are only acceptable if they do not affect the minimum core obligations entailed by the economic, social and cultural rights that States have committed to respect, protect and fulfil.   As a general human rights principle, access to justice should be also ensured in the area of economic, social and cultural rights.   Judicial overview of State measures regarding economic, social and cultural rights should indeed apply to austerity measures, in particular if they adversely affect the most vulnerable groups in society or the enjoyment of minimum essential levels of those rights.   For example, persons living in poverty are often unable to access justice or to seek redress for actions and omissions that adversely affect them. They encounter a variety of obstacles, including costs or legal illiteracy which prevent them from successfully registering initial complaints or a lack of accessible and effective complaint mechanisms to challenge administrative or judicial decisions that affect them adversely. The latest thematic report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty elaborates upon the ways in which violations of certain human rights prevent people living in poverty from benefiting from legal and adjudicatory processes and mechanisms in an equal and non-discriminatory manner.   When judicial systems receive inadequate financial and human resource allocations from State budgets, then the police, prosecution and courts are understaffed and poorly equipped. The Special Rapporteur stressed that the result is serious neglect and even mistreatment of those seeking justice, which is more pronounced for the most disadvantaged.   In September 2012, the Human Rights Council adopted by consensus the guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights, which also include several recommendations to States to ensure the right to equal protection before the law, access to justice and effective remedies.   Let me add that not only are States bound by international human rights treaties, but that also the European Union itself is a party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Access to justice is enshrined in article 13 of this Convention, which requires parties to “ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages”.   There is growing evidence that budget cuts are affecting persons with disabilities in a particularly harsh way. Community services for persons with disabilities, the provision of personal assistants and individual budgets are often among the areas where the cuts have been most profound. I have heard growing concerns from civil society that this is leading to the re-institutionalization of persons with disabilities, which is against the spirit and wording of the CRPD, article 19 of which aims at their inclusion in the community; indeed, it would be a tragic irony if the ratification of the CRPD by EU Member States were to coincide with a dramatic decrease of the enjoyment of rights laid down in that very Convention. I urge European States to ensure that the most vulnerable in their societies aren’t seen as the “softest targets”, the groups to which cuts can be most easily applied.   In my recent statement at the High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels, before the UN General Assembly, I stressed that the right to access justice and legal aid should be respected and ensured.   I am glad that in the Declaration, which was adopted in New York on 24 September 2012, Heads of State and Government committed to an effective, just, non-discriminatory and equitable delivery of public services pertaining to the rule of law, including criminal, civil and administrative justice, commercial dispute settlement and legal aid.   The Declaration also emphasized the right of equal access to justice for all, including members of vulnerable groups, and the importance of awareness-raising concerning legal rights. In this regard, the Heads of State and Government committed to taking all necessary steps to provide fair, transparent, effective, non-discriminatory and accountable services that promote access to justice for all, including legal aid.   I hope that these commitments will be effectively implemented, in particular in times of economic crisis and despite any austerity measures or other actions taken to address the financial situation of States.   * Extract from speech by Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the European Union Fundamental Rights Conference 2012. Visit the related web page
	View more stories